Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

At issue is whether Obama, a supporter of abortion rights, should be given such an honored speaking slot at the nation's second most prestigious Catholic university. (If you have to ask what the number one university is, you don't read the Fix much.)

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs sought to downplay the size or impact of the protests in Tuesday's daily briefing, noting that one group was organizing in opposition to the speech while nearly two dozen were actively supporting it.

"The president understands the right of anybody in this country to disagree and to exercise their disagreement in that way," said Gibbs. "I think it's important to understand it appears as if the vast majority of students and the majority of Catholics are supportive of the invitation the president accepted and I know he's greatly looking forward to it."

Why all the back and forth over a simple speech?

First, a bit of context is necessary.

Protests and controversies surrounding speeches by presidents and other top administration officials are nothing new. Remember back to 2005 when President George W. Bush addressed the graduating seniors at Calvin College and a third of the faculty signed a letter protesting his visit as in violation of the school's core principles vis a vis the war in Iraq.

Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey (D), the president of the New School who extended that invitation to McCain, defended Obama as a commencement pick. "Obama's speaking skills, his original thinking and popularity with students practically guarantee a smashing success that makes the university and its president feel and look good," said Kerrey.

The second factor to consider when analyzing the controversy surrounding Obama's commencements is that the massive level of attention he draws wherever he goes provides an attractive platform for individuals or groups looking to raise their profiles by a well-timed protest.

"I suspect we'll see more controversies manufactured by opponents, because they get some of the spotlight when they engage President Obama," predicted Democratic strategist Doug Hattaway. "They don't bask in his glow, but they definitely get more air time."

In other words, there's more where these controversies came from.

What To Watch For:

Wednesday Fix Picks: Ever wish there was a political Hall of Fame? Us too. And we are creating one on the Fix. Stay tuned.

Obama Revs Up Organizing Arm for Health Care Fight: In a sign that the White House knows it is in for a fight on the president's plan to reform the health care system in the country, Organizing for America -- the group within the Democratic National Committee that owns the email list built by Obama during the 2008 campaign -- sent out a call for support to its grassroots army last night. "Last fall millions of regular people came together and did the impossible," wrote OFA director Mitch Stewart in the email appeal. "Now, we've got to roll up our sleeves, join hands with those new to our movement, and do it again." Stewart asks recipients to sign a pledge supporting the basic principles underlying Obama's efforts on health care, noting: "The more signatures we have, the more powerful our message will be." The transformation of Obama's political infrastructure to policy fights remains a work in progress as it is far harder to mobilize volunteers for a complicated fight on the budget or health care than it is to turn out people for a campaign rally. The health care fight this fall will put the OFA list to the test. Can it deliver votes in Congress like it delivered votes on election day 2008?

Speaking of Health Care...: A broad coalition that includes members ranging from PhRMA to the Service Employees International Union is spending more than $500,000 on ads tying health care reform to an overall economic recovery. Sponsored by Healthy Economy Now, the ad's narrator calls on viewers to "fix health care, it's a big part of fixing the economy." The commercials are set to run in Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Tennessee and Wyoming -- all states with persuadable senators -- as well as Washington, D.C.

Click It!: Always wondered what women are thinking? (Guilty). Slate has the answer in their new "XX Factor" blog written by Emily Bazelon and Hanna Rosin among others.

The arrests marked the third straight Friday that protesters have been detained. They are angry about the school's decision to give Obama, who supports abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research, an honorary degree and have him speak at Sunday's commencement.

"Notre Dame is arresting a priest," the Rev. Norman Weslin, founder of the Lambs of Christ abortion protest group, said as Notre Dame security personnel put plastic restraints on his wrists Friday. "Why are you arresting a priest for trying to stop the killing of a baby? You've got it all backward."

Q Robert, Senators Graham and Lieberman have written the President a letter about pending release of the photographs of the treatment of detainees, and they would like the President to consider reversing that decision made by the Justice Department and the Department of Defense. And in their letter, they say the release of these old photographs of past behavior --

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- the decision made by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice relating to a series of court cases dating back to September of 2008, as well as an appeals case dating back to March 11.

Go ahead.

Q That's the legal foundation, yes. And in their letter, they say this will "serve no public good" -- I'm quoting now -- "but will empower al Qaeda propaganda operations, hurt our country's image, and endanger our men and women in uniform." Is this something that is being considered by the President for reversal or is this a policy that will go forward? And does he have any anxiety about the potential consequences of the release of these photographs?

MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously the President has great concern about any impact that pictures of detainee -- potential detainee abuse in the past could have on the present-day service members that are protecting our freedom either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or throughout the world. That's something the President is very cognizant of, and we are working to -- we are working currently to figure out what the process is moving forward.

I have completed work for the day. I have read the Prez's statement about the photos. From the statement, these photos were evidence in now closed cases of abuse where the abusers were punished. According to the Prez, neither Admin suppressed these photos - they resulted in convictions and/or penalties.

If this is true, then I am not deeply concerned for the "public's right to know" in this specific matter. I am concerned for the propaganda value of the photos, however.

Please know that if these photos had been suppressed from use by prosecutors and defense counsel in either the prosecution of the guards or of the prisoners I would be very concerned.

I am NOT criticizing chrisfox8 or drindl's number of posts. They were the ones who started with: "Jake your use of this section for personal attention is a daily and increasingly tiresome constant ... You write in the first person more than everyone else here combined. Whatever the nominal topic, it's always about you."

I am simply rebutting those specious claims. For instance, I was gone yesterday golfing, so I don't post "daily". Also, I don't post more "in the first person" than everyone else combined. In fact, I think that Google tells the tale (as I posted below):

"For the record, chrisfox8 and drindl "combined" have posted 31 times just on this thread alone (more than JakeD and Bob Dole combined ; )"

By my count JakeD & Bob Dole combined for 31 posts. (31 for the former, zero for the latter). So you criticize drindl & chrisfox8 for their number of posts, but match their combined score with your own drivel. Ironic.

Obama's change of heart on the photos can only mean one thing: he's seen some of them, and knows that they are so outrageous and sick that the world would just explode at what our nation has been doing.

His reversal is not good news, and the suggestion that we should conceal the truth because of the impression it might make on our scrupulously noble men in uniform is a shibboleth. Because it turns out that our noble men in uniform have done some pretty horrible things.

As Gates implied last month, if FIA will control what gets released, the Admin should not artificially prolong the attempted secrecy. If the Admin thinks it has good grounds to win under FIA it should not anticipate a loss by disclosing that which would otherwise properly remain secure.

While the GWB Admin was often an example of "error", IMO, every Admin will be tempted to err on the side of caution over the side of disclosure. Instructing the lawyers not to concede this group of photos to the ACLU may turn out to be wrong on the law and may turn out to be right. I came to not trust GWB more than I distrusted other Admins, but this Admin could turn out to be unworthy of trust in these matters, too. I gave GWB the benefit of the doubt for some years; I'll give this Prez the benefit of the doubt for some more months - my reservoir of trust for government having become somewhat depleted.

Taking up your point, though, total university endowments in the US have to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. I think the Ivy League alone is around $100 billion. That's a lot of institutional investment power.

In the days since the correspondents' dinner, reaction to Barack Obama's reaction to Wanda Sykes's one-liners has resembled a confederacy of scolds. What dreary, sensitive wretches we've become.

Do I think Sykes was a monument to hilarity? No, but she was funny much of the time. Do I think her now-infamous Rush Limbaugh jokes were over the top? Yeah. That's a comedian for you. Do I think her performance -- and Obama's apparent amusement -- marks the decline of civilization? This is hardly a new development.

God forbid they shouldn't be allowed to destroy the National Park. I really don't understand why people who call themselves patriots want to destroy the American heritage.

Posted by: drindl

==

Utah's days are numbered. The state is of course in the grip of a fundamentalist cult, but the older generation that owns most of the land has some lingering environmental spirit. Their kids don't. The kids are waiting for their parents to die off so they can sell the land they inherit and watch the "developers" move in. You'll see grotesque family theme parks all over the state, oil and gas drilling, and one big horrid mess.

And it's a shame, it's a scenic and attractive state, but the cities and towns are creepy with tranquilized and bored people.

"Reid filed for cloture May 11 on Hayes’ nomination, which has been delayed because of a controversy about oil and gas development. Robert F. Bennett , R-Utah, said in March that he would try to hold up floor consideration because he objected to the department’s decision to cancel oil and gas drilling leases near several national parks in Utah."

God forbid they shouldn't be allowed to destroy the National Park. I really don't understand why people who call themselves patriots want to destroy the American heritage.

I think we have pretty much determined that the Fix is a true nerd, as he himself is the first to point out. Therefore we can not blame him if he often does not get 'it."

And then, an essay by Michael Gerson, republican:

"Of the two main American political parties, Republicans are now clearly distinguished by their driving desire to lose. Every faction seems determined to rule the kingdom of irrelevance.

Witness the reaction to the National Council for a New America - an anodyne "listening tour" by Republican officials recently kicked off at a pizza parlor in Northern Virginia. Social conservatives attacked this forum on education and the economy for the offense of not being a forum on abortion and the traditional family. Neo-Reaganites searched the transcript for nonexistent slights: How dare former Florida governor Jeb Bush criticize "nostalgia" for the "good old days"? Why didn't he just spit on Ronald Reagan's grave? Other conservatives criticized the very idea of a listening tour, asking, "What's to hear?"

During a recent conversation, Bush described himself as "dumbfounded by the reaction." He added: "I don't think listening is a weakness. People are yearning to be heard. Perhaps we should begin with a little humility."

."There is much for Republicans to be humble about. The party, says Bush, faces "dramatically changing demographics, especially Hispanics in swing states," the "alienation of young voters" and an unprecedented drop in support among college graduates."

Isn't that exactly what Cheney has been saying?! This ain't gonna sit well with the libs.

==

When it comes to declassifying documents Cheney weaves all over the road like a drunkard. He releases what he wants, like CIA operatives' identities, and withholds what he wants for personal gain and personal protection.

"Thankfully, he failed in his efforts to convert a safety net into a casino."

==

Bush sounded like George Will, a firm believer in the infallibility of "the marketplace." If we privatized Social Security then the spirit that lives in money would speak the magic phrase and the money would grow like rabbits with infinite clover and no predators. You know, "the magic of the marketplace" BS.

But I think that was a lie too. The real reason for privatization was to allow the financial caste to get their hands on the nation's retirement accounts, and move it into their own, to disappear into a netherworld of overseas tax havens and numbered international accounts.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Barack Obama has ordered government lawyers to object to the planned release of additional detainee photos, according to an administration official.

"Last week, the president met with his legal team and told them that he did not feel comfortable with the release of the (Defense Department) photos because he believes their release would endanger our troops, and because he believes that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court," the official said.

"At the end of that meeting, the president directed his counsel to object to the immediate release of the photos on those grounds. … (Obama) strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing U.S. forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."

Isn't that exactly what Cheney has been saying?! This ain't gonna sit well with the libs.

ddawd writes, of MinA
"That's an interesting point you made about the plan leading to public ownership of companies."

Theoretically, yes; realistically, no. Institutional investors already hold enormous numbers of shares in publicly held companies, yet few, if any, actually exercise their rights to influence corporate boards. The institutions I'm talking about are state pension funds, endowments (isn't Harvard near a billion by itself?), 401k plans (how many trillions are held in these?), etc. I think the state employee pension funds, for example, typically stay out of corporate boardrooms precisely because of the concern mark_in_austin expressed.

Ddawd, all I can add is that when RWR put SS out to a bipartisan commission they came back with proposals that greatly extended the life of SS and that were enacted, for the most part, into law. We should have done that again, already. But if I understood your question, I do not see how GWB's plan would have been "successful". WJC posed something similar with one significant difference in the late 90s. He would have given increased tax benefits for personal contribs into IRAs and the like, but I do not remember the details. Called it SS+, I think. Now in hindsight it looks like a way to get more money into the financial markets.

SS, and M&M, are prohibited form investing in anything except US Govt obligations. So they are a major purchaser of and holder of the national debt. I know: this can make your head explode.

"If we agree that GWB was right about needing to solve the problem, maybe one way would have been to NOT get into this economic mess in the first place?"

That would be a great point if we could roll back the clock. Regarding the former president, you over-credit him with identifying the problem; he was one of a long list of politicians, analysts and citizens who have pointed out the long term insolvency of the programs. Thankfully, he failed in his efforts to convert a safety net into a casino.

Yeah, this is not my area, so I can't talk expertly. Obviously Bush's plan would have been terrible if carried out, but as a non laissez faire capitalist, do you think the plan would have been more successful?

That's an interesting point you made about the plan leading to public ownership of companies.

mark_in_austin writes
"I take your point on the humor vs. criticism issue for the "Say What?" segment - but then, I do not get the humor in this one."

I read the 'stay loose' phrase in context with an evening of spoken word & poetry as a hipster's way of saying that boundaries can (and perhaps should?) be pushed during the subsequent festivities. Poetry & spoken word aren't my thing though, so I'm guessing. If there's supposed to be a 'joke', I suspect it is on The Fix, who has excluded himself from the ranks of hipsterdom by missing the point.

From the linked article:
"The nation's economic downturn has added to the fragility of Medicare and Social Security because worsening unemployment means that fewer workers are contributing to the two trust funds through payroll taxes."

Sounds like step 1 should be: boosting employment. The projections for Medicare/SS insolvency are exacerbated in times of economic slowdowns: The projected costs continue to rise as our population ages (i.e. the boomers). But the projected revenue falls because employment is down and pay is down (i.e. I still have a job, but our company imposed salary cuts). The projections of future solvency use current numbers - and assume these conditions will continue in the future. If we can reverse these trends, by boosting employment & boosting compensation, we will address the revenue side of the equation. Perhaps someone can develop a modest proposal for addressing the cost side. Hmmm.... What can we do with all the tough old boomers?

Does anyone want to discuss "Social Security and Medicare are running out of money. Fast."

==

Jake your use of this section for personal attention is a daily and increasingly tiresome constant. Why can't you just set up a blogspot account and stop trying to hijack this section for your own tangents?

You write in the first person more than everyone else here combined. Whatever the nominal topic, it's always about you.

ddawd, to be clear, I oppose public ownership of the means of production and distribution, but favor close regulation of monopolies and oligopolies for non-competitive practices [makes me a TR follower].
I am not a laissez-faire capitalist, but I am a capitalist. So I feared all those shares in the hands of the SS Admin [$10T by JakeD's scoring].

Jake, I take your point on the humor vs. criticism issue for the "Say What?" segment - but then, I do not get the humor in this one. I know jokes suffer in explanation, but somebody should figuratively put me out of my misery on this one and explain it.

ddawd, GWB offered the wrong "solution" - privatization; but he was correct to put restructuring of entitlements on the table. So were Cong. Jim Cooper [D] TN and his R cosponsor, two years ago. Speaker Pelosi seems to have stifled the bipartisan commission approach to SS, and M&M, for two sessions, now.

While privatization was frightening because of the risks inherent in the markets, it was even more of a concern to real, as opposed to GWB, capitalists. Opening private markets to SS and M&M funds would have within a few years put the boards of the Fortune 500 under the whims of the voting trustee for the shares owned by the SS system. We would have achieved state ownership of the means of production and distribution without a shot ever having been fired.

As both a regular reader of this blog and a proud graduate of the premier Catholic university in America (hence it's title, The Catholic University of America), I must take serious offense to your blatant snub

SOMETHING should have been done -- who knows, maybe it would have solved the banking crisis -- in hindsight, I think a good argument could be made that an extra $10 trillion in the stock market would have, at least, put off the beginning of the recession enough to elect McCain as President.

SOMETHING should have been done -- who knows, maybe it would have solved the banking crisis -- in hindsight, I think a good argument could be made that an extra $10 trillion in the stock market would have, at least, put off the beginning of the recession enough to elect McCain as President.

The oft-abused parallel between abortion and slavery makes anti-choice advocates feel good, but fails to carry water on even modest reflection.

For instance, slavery inherently and unambiguously involved one autonomous person benefiting at another autonomous person's cost.

In the abortion debate, however, there is first the question of whether there are even two parties involved. If there are two parties, one of them is absolutely not autonomous. There is no debate that one party is required to make decisions about and for the other party. The alleged victim inherently imposes substantial and unrequited costs on the alleged criminal. An abortion is hardly considered a desirable benefit to the alleged criminal -- who would almost universally have preferred to avoid the entire choice -- but rather a lamentable necessity. And so on. All of which anti-choice advocates seek to paper over with slogans.

The largest parallel I see between the case of abolitionists and anti-choice advocates is that they both have produced a substantial fringe of religious or quasi-religious absolutist fanaticism that unscrupulous politicians seek to leverage. Prohibition is another close match, in that respect, and probably even a better match. Other than that, not so much.

"A member of the Republican National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary
special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebranding
Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”

That's a surefire way to increase their appeal and show Americans that they're serious about addressing the nation's problems, eh?

Protesting is fine. Just don't get violent and don't interrupt the proceedings. Example that comes to mind is Tom Tancredo at the University of North Carolina. Standing at the back turned away from Obama is acceptable.

Does anyone know where I can find a graph on abortion rates in the US over time? (using a per capita scaling)

Again, jakey refuses to acknowledge the obvious; these are not students protesting at the gates of ND, they are the professional protesters. The student's response to this "controversy" has been muted. That apparently doesn't suit the right-wingnuts.

Jake, do you have your tickets to South Bend for the weekend lined up? Your friends will want to see you. And you don't want to appear too moderate for them, they'll throw you right (nice pun!) out of the party.

Nothing like a good oxymoron to start the day!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free speech permits insulting Catholics as well as great universities. But it is immature and pointless to do so, nevertheless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone understand why Chris chose the First Lady's remark for criticism? Was he insinuating a double entendre for "...be loose"? Was he implying that proper slang usage is "loosen up"? Is there such a thing as proper slang usage? Any ideas? Anybody?

If anyone else thinks that "opposition to slavery was widespread" (at least by those who could actually VOTE) in the South, please let me know. Back on topic, however, just as I supported the New School students' right to protest McCain, I support Notre Dame students' right to protest Obama. It is hypocritical to denounce only one protest based on which side is giving the commencement address.

For the record, abolitionists had "no sympathy" for their cause in the South either.

==

Spoken like a true gooper, seeing only the views of the wealthy slaveowners.

Opposition to slavery was widespread in the entire USA. The rest of the world had already judged it immoral and wrong and there were plenty in the USA who were against it for a variety of reasons, not all of them moral. Slavery was expensive.

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about, and you have overused this invalid analogy.

Funny haha how you draw this ridiculous comparison between abortion and slavery yet feign to see no comparison between miscegenation laws and same-sex marriage.

"A member of the Republican National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”

The party of crackpots, wackos and nutjobs sinks further into Lala Land.

Do they really think that wasting taxpayer time and money on childish pranks will somehow get them positive attention? They are becoming nothing but a national embarrassment -- a cheap joke.

On one hand, an articulate, intelligent, reasonable man will appear before the students in good faith to speak maturely on important topics, and make a great effort to reach out and find common ground with those who disagree with him.

==

Jacques Berlinerblau wrote about Obama's ability to do "Advanced God Talk" during the campaign while Huckabee was getting similar coverage. Obama has the ability to bridge partisan religious divisions by emphasizing common ground. My guess is that he will wow the students, get a few ovations, and if anything will leave the podium with more support than he had when he walked up to it.

I can predict with a fair degree of confidence which party in this "controversy" will come out the better.

On one hand, an articulate, intelligent, reasonable man will appear before the students in good faith to speak maturely on important topics, and make a great effort to reach out and find common ground with those who disagree with him.

On the other hand, some fanatic nutcases like jaked, most of whom are not even students at the school, will be refusing to even listen, preferring instead to wave pictures of aborted fetuses, chant overwrought slogans, and otherwise grotesquely indulge their own vanity and self-righteousness.

One question, Chris – there were many instances of protestors when Bush or Cheney spoke at colleges, but you never called it a controversy, nor did you confer credibility on the protestors or their viewpoint by even noting it.

And he was so busy 'defending the rights of the unborn' that he couldn't manage to be a father to his own kids. After he found out his son was gay, he disowned him. Then both his unwed daughters became pregnant and he disowned them too.

Oh yeah, and jumped right into the middle of the Terry Shiavo fiasco as well.

Just goes to show that these so-called 'conservatives' need to mind their own business and stay out of other people's lives.

It does the pro-choice cause a lot of good when the anti-choice crowd gets press. The more they're on camera, the more people see of them, the more repelled they are. Joe Scheidler has the manners of Michael Savage; Gary Curran frantically tries to hide his vast belly, trying to cross his arms over it in a comical attempt to hide his shameful condition, Randall Terry is a wide-eyed lunatic with a whiney edge to his voice and completely unable to let anyone else finish a sentence without interrupting with slogans.

Obama is the very soul of calm and courtesy, the ati-abortion cretins are the very soul of rudeness and gruffness. By all means give them lots of press.

Those who are against the abortionist in chief speaking at a Catholic school are simply being consistent with their beliefs that it is wrong to kill babies.

...

Obama could simply choose another college - but, instead he chooses to force his views upon them.

==

Prejudicial language.

(1) Abortion is not "killing babies." Shooting up a schoolyard is killing babies. Google NRA, Second Amendment, automatic weapons, favorite American pasttimes. Abortion is the elective termination of a pregnancy, and it's legal. It's not a "baby" until after birth

(2) Obama isn't "forcing his views" on the ND students. That is a rotted pile of nonsense. Obama is delivering a commencement address, and the students are not being restrained or drugged.

If anyone had asked me to predict a Catholic University's reaction to a visit by a pro-choice president I would have predicted they would be respectful. The kind of hooting and howling behavior we're reading about sounds more like Protestant fundamentalists, mostly enraged GOP types, waving pictures of abortions. That's sick.

At least the students have mixed reactions, some excited and respectful, some hooting like Operation Rescue cretins.

We've been hearing about abortion for, what, thirty five years? It's a settled issue but for some deadender culture warriors whose lives wouldn't be whole without some outrage to maintain. Boring. We have bigger fish to fry. The last thing we need right now is more babies,.

Who's paying the bills? Can ND afford to alienate the bill-payers? Students are an afterthought.
Posted by: bsimon1
--------------------------
Lucky for my nephews and nieces my brother makes a good living, and does not hold purse strings over their beliefs.

Oh, I'm sorry jakey, you were referring to our VERY thankful ALLIES, the Iraqis.

It must be their customary way of saying thank you for invading our country, not finding WMD's, killing our civilians and spending hundreds of billions of the American people's money to fix our country.

The right wing is just loving this, it gives them some red meat to chew on. My brother has three kids in ND, two graduating on Sunday. He has done nothing but whine since Obama was named, funny, not a word from his kids.

I've learned that the old red necks die hard, the next generation has a more open mind.

I think these University presidents need to show a little backbone. Last year Columbia University's president allowed for President Ahmadinejad to speak, and he held his ground for the same reason that Notre Dame's president should. Universities are supposed to be places where all reasonable viewpoints are presented and debated, and the students who disagree with Obama should go and see him speak and then make a judgement (BTW the same goes for McCain or anyone you disagree with). The students of Notre Dame students should look at this as their last chance to learn something from one of the more formidable minds of our time.

Now the second point of honorary Doctorates is another thing all together. Universities give these things out like free buffet tickets in Vegas. They should be reserved for people who have acheived tremendous accomplishments, not just some B-rate actor or journalist (BTW, CC you are definitly A-rate)

"So, basically it's childish partisanship. Last time I checked everyone(either Democrat or Republican) is American, every American should respect their President, the office he holds and the immense responsibilities that come with it."

Yeah, basically.

FWIW, I actually agree and disagree with you at the same time. We actually agree that it's childish partisanship, but I support their right to "disrespect the office" much like I did when Dems did it. I object to the fact that they are doing so after bleating about respecitng the office when their dude was in charge. I extend the same consternation to any democrat who has done a similar 180 on this issue.

I consider myself an advocate for the First Amendment. The central speech rights to be protected are political and religious speech. There is no issue or problem with peaceful assembly in protest, or boycott in protest of a politician or his perceived views, in this free country. That does not change if it is GWB and Iraq or BHO on abortion.

The line is crossed when protesters try to shout down speakers or otherwise interfere with the time, place, or manner of an event.

I assume that will not occur in South Bend. I assume the confusion about rights and responsibilities is shared and disseminated by the press, or no
one would think this was a VERY BIG DEAL.

After howling about it for 8 years, Conservatives and Republicans no longer feel that we should respect the office of the presidency since "the other team" is in power.
Posted by: VTDuffman | May 13, 2009 9:07 AM

So, basically it's childish partisanship. Last time I checked everyone(either Democrat or Republican) is American, every American should respect their President, the office he holds and the immense responsibilities that come with it. It is crazy to complain about wrongs you feel were done to Pres. Bush, and conclude: I didn't vote for Obama, so I should treat him the same way I feel Democrats treated Pres. Bush.

This is a "controversy" manufactured by the dying embers of the fascist-right. Most ND students want him there. Most Americans think that those who are outraged are just a bunch a whack-jobs. A non-story.

If individuals differ with Pres Obama on policy, fine. But to not confer the customary honorary degree, or for a school official to boycott the ceremony, shows a disrespect for the office of the President that stuns me. The President of the United States is speaking at your institution -- these ticky-tack acts of disrespect, regardless of who holds the office, are ugly and infantile.

Obama could simply choose another college - but, instead he chooses to force his views upon them.
Posted by: VirginiaConservative | May 13, 2009 8:29 AM

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe Notre Dame invited Pres. Obama. He isn't forcing any beliefs/views upon them, they asked him to speak and he agreed. It should be seen as a great honor by both parties.
Those who are against Obama speaking are mixing their religion with their politics.

Those who are against the abortionist in chief speaking at a Catholic school are simply being consistent with their beliefs that it is wrong to kill babies.

It is long past due that the Catholic Church holds accountable politicians who support and enable this barbaric procedure.

Obama could simply choose another college - but, instead he chooses to force his views upon them.

ASU, btw, has been the first to actually tell the emperor he has no clothes and good on them.

Funny how the lefist reporters quietly stood back and watched with amusement while Bush administration folks were banned from venue after venue. In institutions were diversity and free speech are soooo valued.

Now, of course, that some dare to confront the anointed one, and we have segued from free speech and diversity to the terrorist right wing.

Didn't Bush's chief of staff get booed down at some commencement speech too? I thought the bigger issue was giving Obama an honorary law degree? Will the White House request any religious symbols be covered up again?